Ranger703 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 157 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
I'm a bit miffed!! I uploaded this shot of one of Scotland's most popular GA airfields in the hope of it getting accepted.I was quite pleased when it got through the initial screening but somewhat suprised when I found that it had been left for Johan,after all its just a airfield overview,not unlike many already in the database( I browsed to check motiv's etc prior to uploading).This evening I have received a rejection email stating it has been rejected for motiv!
Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
The picture is nice, but if Johan has already rejected it then I think you should give it up.
There´s nothing you 'did' wrong, it´s just a motive that Johan didn´t find suitable for the type of airfield shot that you can see in the DB.
I like it. The landscape is very nice, although I think that the problem can be that there are no runway markings to make it more appealing as an airfield shot. Next time it would be great if you could include at least the runway numbers.
My 2 cents. Hope it helps.
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
I'm sure that is true, but many similar shots get rejected, too.
In my opinion, although the scenery is nice, there's just too much empty grass runway. I don't suppose that aircraft took off towards the camera - would have made the picture much more interesting.
I guess I was lucky. Should this have been a grass runway, I would have been banned for uploading a soccer field
Ranger703 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
Any chance that you can elaborate Tim?
This is an overview of the airfield,as it looks from an aircraft at the line-up position. I am at a loss in attempting to see how it is different from many other overviews in the database. What kind of motiv would you suggest?
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1925 times:
Our rules are not always so easy to interpret. While we accept airfield overviews, we also make decisions on how 'interesting' the image is. And of course that is subjective we felt your image was not interesting enough since it shows oly grass and a few small aircraft in the background.
As an example of how we interpret our rules have a look at this image
Although some locations are rarer than others, I see no difference between the accepted shots you showed and yours, except that yours is actually a little more bit interesting in my opinion. However, obviously, some screeners will accept these and some will not. You're a bit unlucky here, or perhaps the other guys were very lucky to have their shots accepted - you may only see the accepted top of an iceberg of rejections. You could try an appeal, of course, but comparing with accepted shots generally gets you nowhere.
For run-of-the-mill airliner motives, it's more or less clear what is acceptable and what is not, but for this kind of shots, yes, screening is not going to be entirely consistent. We have to accept that when uploading such shots I'm afraid. When they are really, really nice, they pretty consistently do get in, and these will be your greatest photos in the database.
[Edited 2007-08-21 01:30:27]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2934 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Although your shot is interesting Andy, I have to agree with the screeners here. There's not enough overall 'interest' in the shot, it's just a grass strip as it is. If there was something in the foreground, the composition would be greatly improved. For example, this is a shot which I suppose is similar to yours in that it's a small airfield:
Imagine that shot without the runway designation. It just wouldn't work. I just feel your shot needs something to anchor it in the foreground. It is an interesting shot though, just not for here as it stands.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX